Week 4 Post

Kumar Chapter2 I felt truth in the quote, “the term method is a label without substance.” At times it feels so vague or as though it encompasses so much that it is hard to define. It is used so widespread and for so many different things. So, I can understand why there was dissatisfaction and why the postmethod condition arose. It almost seems like opting-out of the “alternative methods” that cannot realistically be applied to a classroom of learners for instruction. Everyone learners differently and many of the methods seem to be extreme for practical and realistic instruction. Brown Chapter 3 I connected with the section discussing the dysfunction of the theory-practice dichotomy. The author did a great job describing the relationship between theorist and practitioner. They described it as that of a producer of goods and a consumer. Also, theorists are regarded more highly than practitioners. I completely agree. I love the district for which I work but disagree with one of their “pushes.” We are told to teach the curriculum or from the “basal” with 100% integrity because it is research based and based on theories. However, as a teacher if you do not see it working and your students are not being successful following that model, why continue it? Teachers input and classroom research should be valued more. I was glad to read that newer work views teachers as researchers and encourage action research and classroom based research. I happen to do this in my classroom for reading instruction. I am trying to collect data to support a different approach to reading than the basal in my bilingual classroom. The next thing I was reminded of when reading was of the SIOP method. I thought of this while reading about Task based language teaching (slightly) and when reading about Content Based Instruction. Content Based Instruction also reminded me of thematic units/plans. Would thematic units fall under that?